Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Yourself Screening Tool: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:41, 17 July 2019

Revision as of 13:41, 17 July 2019

Line 10:

:::*It still seems to me that the argument you are making here is [[WP:RUBBISH|one of the specifically listed arguments to avoid]] in AFD arguments. AFD shouldn't be used to encourage re-writes of articles of subjects you consider notable. Even per the essay you cite, [[WP:TNT]], it seems the better solution than deleting it would be erasing the offensive content, reducing the article to a stub, then putting a template on it to encourage users to improve it. If it gets deleted, that will only discourage users from ever creating it again, since they will have seen it has already been deleted before. Given that the nominator himself asserts that the article subject is notable, I'm inclined to vote keep and encourage that they use more appropriate methods to encourage improvement... — [[User:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hun</b>]][[User talk:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">ter</b>]] [[Special:Contribs/Hunter_Kahn|<b style="color:#595454">Ka</b>]][[User:Hunter Kahn/Autographs|<b style="color:#595454">hn</b>]] 02:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

::Actually, AfD is almost the only way to actually get articles rewritten. The page you cite is an essay, not policy, and the various things stated there in a definite tone are not that definite as they sound---they are followed in different degrees. 12 years ago, when I started engaging in these afd discussions, I would have argued as you did--at the time, we did not fully realize the dangers of letting promotional articles stay around in WP . It's not only that htey stay here as advertising, and even worse show up as authoritative in Google (that "feature" of Google wasn't there 12 years ago, either) , but they serve as the models for other articles. Promotional writers thing that if others have gotten away with it, so can they; good faith but naïve new ediors actually think that a promotional style of writing is what we want since they see so much of it here. If you think it can be fix, fix it. Now. If you cannot do it now, try it in draft space. But the one thing we should not do is leave such articles in mainspace. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 08:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

::*'''Keep'''. I don't want to just keep repeating the same argumentarguments over and over, but suffice it to say, I profoundly disagree with your interpretation of what AFD is and should be (though I've seen others who agree with you before over the course of my 11 years here). And since you yourself have indicated this article subject is notable, I vote keep. — [[User:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hun</b>]][[User talk:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">ter</b>]] [[Special:Contribs/Hunter_Kahn|<b style="color:#595454">Ka</b>]][[User:Hunter Kahn/Autographs|<b style="color:#595454">hn</b>]] 13:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology|list of Technology-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Coolabahapple|Coolabahapple]] ([[User talk:Coolabahapple|talk]]) 02:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)</small>

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Health and fitness|list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Coolabahapple|Coolabahapple]] ([[User talk:Coolabahapple|talk]]) 02:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)</small>